Tag Archives: Democrat

Yesterday Democrats on House Oversight committee walked out on the parents of murdered Benghazi Americans Ty Woods and Sean Smith. This is consistent with Obama and Hillary walking out and abandoning their sons. For the liberal progressives who control the Democrat party it’s more important to protect current POTUS and the one they want to be POTUS. Such a despicable and disrespectful act reflects upon who the Democrats are and sadly upon those in the media who support them and those who vote for them. Shameful.

When Allen and I go out to parties, galas, and the like, people speak to him about conservative thinking. That is a given. He is deeply patriotic, deeply involved with the history of the country and very knowledgeable.

But….. after they speak with him, the conversation invariably turns to me. And…. it starts like this….”WHEN DID you BECOME conservative….” A girlfriend of mine who I have known since I was a child told me “its written all over your face…. people can tell..” OK, should I change my lipstick? (smile)

I was the quintessential student, loved school, fell in love with the university life — both in Europe and the US. It was intellectually stimulating and exciting. I truly understand when my daughter gives us 4 hours here and there during the school year. She is me — albeit with the “Conservative Chick” tee-shirt.

The University meant that I could be myself. The lover of documentaries, exhibitions and plays. I remember when Allen and I got married, the officer’s wives club had their meeting to welcome me. That was like fitting a round peg (me) into a square hole (them). You see, one faces a big penalty for non-conformance in such groups. I knew how to sew well because my grandmother owned a business which involved making high quality dresses for the top US stores so she taught me. BUT the officer’s wives were into “crafts” so I tried it. Let me tell you that cross stitch is not only boring, it is tedious. very….. One of the other Ph.D. students came from Utah where she told me that her mother was a whiz at embroidery and cross stitch. Her mother sent an 89 percent completed a piece and I finished the trim in front of my peers in the OWC. I still have the piece. It says “Officers’ Wives — the toughest job in the military”. It had all of the flourishes, my friend’s mother is a genious and I was accepted at least for a short while.

At that time — late 80′s to the 90′s the left pretty much solidified their dominance in University thought and hires. They replaced all of the stuffy professors in suits with conservative ways with “cool professors” who sat on the lawns, smoked weed and had many neurotic ticks. But they were creative and exciting. They also did not have preconceived notions about women, minorities, gays and so forth. Believe me, I was told by one “conservative” professor that “women can not write nor do arithmetic — much less BLACK women.” He was able to grade any paper I wrote, no matter how long, in a matter of 3 – 5 minutes. He gave me a “B” and wrote a note that he was being “generous”. Another, was the chair of one of the large departments, he was known to hire only attractive girls with his department budget, I felt “happy” that I was one of the chosen. Then, I came down with the flu, showed up to work looking pretty run down for a week and he jokingly said —- “If you don’t get your act together and stop dragging in here, I going to replace you.” And so on and so forth ….The “Stinkin’ Thinkin’” crew had to GO.

The Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of gaining political support or winning elections in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.

Just what was the Southern Strategy?

It was not developed by the Nixon team but was attributed to Nixon’s political strategist Kevin Phillips. Phillips stated in an interview in a 1970 New York Times article:

“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”

This was the strategy that helped to win the Southern states for the Republican Party during the 1968 and 1972 elections.

Although political scientists have argued that the change in the southern voting patterns from Democrat to Republican had more to do with economic interests than with race, the change was in place. By the way white working class voters in the south still continued to vote for Democrats for national office until the 1990s, so the jury is still out about the true success of the Southern Strategy as regards to race.

By the way, in 1976, Jimmy Carter won most of the Southern states without offending northern Democrats, explaining, “I have no trouble pitching for Wallace votes and black votes at the same time.” Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!

Democratic charges of racism have been made about Republican campaigns for the House of Representatives and Senate in the South. The Willie Horton commercials used by supporters of George H. W. Bush against Michael Dukakis in the election of 1988 were considered by many Democrats, including Jesse Jackson, Lloyd Bentsen, and many newspaper editors, to be racist.

In 1990 re-election campaign of Jesse Helms attacked his opponent’s alleged support of “racial quotas,” with an ad where a white person’s hands are seen crumpling a letter indicating that he was denied a job because of the color of his skin.

Lee Atwater:

Harvey LeRoy “Lee” Atwater (February 27, 1951 – March 29, 1991) was an American political consultant and strategist to the Republican Party. He was an advisor of U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and chairman of the Republican National Committee.

A man of many contradictions, Atwater played guitar in a rock band called the Upsetter Revue in Columbia South Carolina. At the height of his political power he played with B.B. King, and released an album called “Red, Hot, and Blue” featuring among others, the great Isaac Hayes. He was also a husband and father to three children.

All of this being said Atwater possessed An acumen for aggressive tactics. For example, as the campaign consultant to Republican incumbent Floyd Spence in his race for Congress against Tom Turnipseed , a Democrat, Atwater’s tactics included doctored push polls, fake surveys and statements that Turnipseed was not only a member of the NAACP but that he “got hooked up to jumper cables”. Atwater discovered Turnipseed underwent shock therapy as a teenager for depression.

The following is the infamous interview that Atwater gave on the “Southern Strategy”

ATWATER: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

Although Atwater was not directly responsible for the Willie Horton Ads, the campaign benefited from it. Atwater’s skills in the 1988 election led one biographer to call him “the best campaign manager who ever lived.”

After the election, Atwater was named chairman of the Republican National Committee. The scope of Atwater’s abilities are far beyond the scope of this page, however, there is one very notable achievement:

In 1989, Atwater became a new member of the historically black Howard University Board of Trustees. The university gained national attention when students rose up in protest against Atwater’s appointment. Student activists disrupted Howard’s 122nd anniversary celebrations and eventually occupied the university’s administration building. Within days, both Atwater and Howard President James E. Cheek resigned.

Atwater collapsed in March of 1990 at a political fundraiser for Phil Gramm. He was diagnosed with brain cancer. He underwent very drastic treatments which left him swollen and unable to move without a wheelchair. In his last written piece, he stated the following:

“My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood.”

President Barack Obama received 95% of the African American vote. But even before this, at least 88% of the African American vote.

The large majority of African Americans support the Democratic Party. In the 2004 Presidential Election, Democrat John Kerry received 88% of the African American vote compared to 11% for Republican George W. Bush. Although there is an African-American lobby in foreign policy, it has not had the impact that African American organizations have had in domestic policy.

The African American trend of voting for Democrats can be traced back to the 1930s during the Great Depression, when Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal program provided economic relief to African Americans; Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition turned the Democratic Party into an organization of the working class and their liberal allies, regardless of region. The African American vote became even more solidly Democratic when Democratic presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson pushed for civil rights legislation during the 1960s. This along with the efforts by Truman, Eisenhower and others solidified this block.

It seems some writer at the NY Times is at it again, calling the GOP in disarray and racist. Perhaps this gent needs a little history lesson. The Democrat party gave America slavery, secession, segregation, and socialism. Jim Crow laws, poll tax, literacy tests, and providing women checks for having children out of wedlock are further examples of Democrat policies. President Lincoln broke the chains of physical bondage. President Reagan broke the chains of economic bondage. The writer thinks the GOP is in disarray, but it’s thanks to liberal progressive policies emanating from the Obama administration that America is in disarray. The demise of our economic, energy, and national security are evident and the State of our Union is horrific. I would much rather be a member of a political party that rewards my individual industrialism, than one which promotes my individual subjugation.

I am frequently at cocktail parties, private get together’s and so forth where my fellow republicans are mystified regarding the almost total domination of the African American voting block by the Democratic Party. Most people have only a partial history of the dedication because it is far more complicated than one can conceive and as such it is at many times ,contradictory. The fact that we have an African American president aside, the Democrats virtually own the African American voting bloc and the true reasons run very deep. The intentions are full of good intentions, bad intentions, misconceptions, racism and betrayal. The following is a brief synopsis, tomorrow we will tackle the political strategies that were used to achieve the almost total alienation of this voting block which were perpetuated by politicians long gone and have had a lasting effect on the politics of today. We will also discuss the things that can be done to elicit some change for the future.

The term “Solid South” describes the total domination that the Democratic Party had of the southern states from 1877 to 1964. During this period the vast majority of office holders in the federal, state and local levels of government were Democrats. The Republican Party was virtually non-existent. And why was this the case? Because of the the Republican Party’s stance in favor of political rights for blacks during reconstruction and economic factors that were viewed as favoring the Northern industrial interests at the expense of the agricultural interests of the South.

The “Solid South” is defined as the eleven states of the old Confederacy plus Kentucky, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Missouri. Missouri was the first to break and vote Republican.

In order to understand the almost complete absorption of the African American voting block by the Democratic Party it is necessary to go back in history to the following events:

-The change in the Democrat party was ushered in following the civil rights plank of the Democratic Campaign in 1948; triggering the formation of the Dixiecrat.

During the 1948 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia (July 12-14), liberal Democrats (campaigning with a platform that included advances in civil rights) won by a close vote. In a dramatic exhibition of many Southerners’ deep-held discriminatory beliefs, every member of the Mississippi delegation and half of the Alabama delegation walked out of the convention. This event would soon lead to the formation of the States’ Rights party, members of whom have often been referred to as “Dixiecrats.” was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic party, determined to protect what they portrayed as the” southern way of life”. Supporters assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full in several Southern states. The States’ Rights Democratic Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. Members of this group of Democrats referred to themselves as Dixiecrats. The greatest long term effect that the Dixiecrats had on the Democrat party was that it weakened the Democratic hold on the south, referred to as the “Solid South”. The party did not run local or state candidates, and after the 1948 election its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party.

-Civil Rights The Movement
On July 26,1948 Truman, a Democrat, signs Executive Order 9981, which states, “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.” From 1948 to 1984 the Southern states, traditionally a stronghold for the Democrats, became key swing states, providing the popular vote margins in the 1960, 1968 and 1976 elections. During this era, several Republican candidates expressed support for states’ rights, which some critics claim was a “codeword” of opposition to federal enforcement of civil rights for blacks and intervention on their behalf, including passage of legislation to protect the franchise .

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women.[2] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (“public accommodations”).
Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who would later sign the landmark Voting Rights Act into law.

-Passage of the Voting Rights Act

Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibits states from imposing any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure … to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”[3] Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African Americans from exercising the franchise.[2] The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.[

-Desegregation

Desegregation is the process of ending the separation of two groups usually referring to races. In 1948, President Harry S. Truman’s Executive Order 9981 ordered the integration of the armed forces shortly after World War II, a major advance in civil rights. Using the Executive Order (E.O.) meant that Truman could bypass Congress. Representatives of the Solid South, all white Democrats, would likely have stonewalled related legislation.

Although these initiatives, movements and laws started quite a bit earlier than many imagine, it was to be an ongoing and uphill battle with the political parties intertwined in more ways than one.

After the Democrat George Wallace was elected as Governor of Alabama, he helped link the concept of states’ rights and segregation, both in speeches and by creating crises to provoke Federal intervention. He opposed integration at the University of Alabama, and collaborated with the Ku Klux Klan in disrupting court-ordered integration of public schools in Birmingham in 1963.
1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater won his home state of Arizona and five states in the Deep South. The Southern states, traditionally Democratic up to that time, voted Republican primarily as a statement of opposition to the Civil Rights Act which had been passed by Johnson and the Democrats in Congress earlier that year. Capturing 61.1% of the popular vote and 486 electors, Johnson won in a landslide. Note that Texas went to Johnson due to him being the favorite son.
Many of the states rights Democrats were attracted to the 1984 presidential campaign of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona. Goldwater was notably more conservative than previous Republican nominees, such as Dwight D. Eisenhower. Goldwater’s principal opponent in the primary election. Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, was widely seen as representing the more moderate (and pro-Civil Rights) Northern wing of the party .
In the 1964 presidential campaign, Goldwater ran a conservative campaign which broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[27] His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose, even if the choice is based on racial discrimination.

All this appealed to white Southern Democrats, and Goldwater was the first Republican to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina) since Reconstruction. However, Goldwater’s vote on the Civil Rights Act proved devastating to his campaign everywhere outside the South (other than the South, Goldwater only won in Arizona, his home state), contributing to his landslide defeat in 1964. A Lyndon B. Johnson ad called “Confessions of a Republican,” which ran in the North, associated Goldwater with the Ku Klux Klan. At the same time, Johnson’s campaign in the Dep South publicized Goldwater’s full history on civil rights. In the end, Johnson swept the election.

Goldwater’s position was at odds with most of the prominent members of the Republican Party, dominated by so-called Eastern Establishment and Midwestern Progressives. A higher percentage of the Republican Party supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964[27]than did the Democratic Party, as they had on all previous Civil Rights legislation. The Southern Democrats mostly opposed their Northern Party mates — and their presidents (Kennedy and Johnson) on civil rights issues.

In some Republican circles, the election after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was termed, “The Great Betrayal”. Even though some Republicans paid a price with white voters — in some cases losing seats — black voters did not return to the Republican fold. Indeed, in some cases, notably the re-election of Senator Al Gore Sr., a majority of black voters cast their votes for a man who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

As you can see, the history is a bit more involved that simply the Republicans supporting civil rights. Tomorrow we will look more deeply into the political strategies that solidified the support by African Americans for the Democrat party.

“Caught in their attempt to quietly throw the Jewish State of Israel under the bus in their party platform, Patrick Murphy’s Democrats dragged their party faithful kicking, screaming and booing to a vote to re-instate pro-Jerusalem language and references to God. It was a cynical, political move to hastily pull a veil over their true beliefs.

While the 2012 platform now reinstates the language about Jerusalem, it is still far weaker than the 2008 platform which recognized Israel’s right to exist, stated the United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas, and made mention of the creation of a separate Palestinian state.

Since 2008, the policies of President Obama have only served to further isolate Israel, a tiny glimmer of freedom and liberty in the Middle East and our strongest ally in the region. His disdainful attitude to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and by extension, the Jewish people of both Israel and the United States, is reprehensible.

How this President, this Democrat party, its Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her lapdog, Patrick Murphy, have the nerve to stand in front of Jewish Americans and say they support the State of Israel is unconscionable.

The only positive thing about this disgusting turn of events is that the American people now know without a doubt where the Democrats stand on Israel and the Jewish people–and it is clearly not with them.”

Allen West betrayed

Can anyone with a modicum of common sense understand why the Republican Party of Florida allowed Congressman Allen West to be gerrymandered out of his congressional district?

It would make sense if this were Massachusetts or California. If a Democrat-majority state had tried to force Rep. West out, we could easily see why. But this is a battleground state, and one whose Legislature is run by his fellow Republicans.

While some might think that it might be better to have someone safe, someone timid, in such an environment, I disagree wholeheartedly. It is precisely in such tight races that we need someone who can motivate the base to show up on Election Day, and someone who can get people excited. If GOP candidates don’t look any different from the Democrats, what would be the point of voting for them?

Florida is going to be perhaps the most important state in this year’s elections. It is the fourth-largest in the union, and a toss-up swing state where Republicans have a huge majority of the congressional delegation. Its only rival in electoral significance is Ohio. Do Republicans want powerful voices representing the party in these states, or weak ones?

His only fault is that he didn’t embrace the Republican establishment when their views were contrary to those of the Tea Party.

Q. Congressman West, you have decided to run for reelection in newly drawn Florida District 18, where there are more Republican registered voters, instead of your current Florida District 22 that will also be redrawn to include more registered Democrat voters. This decision points to a realization that your conservative message only plays well in Republican-leaning districts, and that if you stayed in your current District 22 your chances of reelection would have been substantially reduced. Why do your strongly held conservative principles seem to be so polarizing among the general voting population?

A. Conservative principles are not new — after all, our nation was founded on conservative principles of limited government, individual responsibility, and a strong defense. The problem is these principles have been ignored by the liberal progressive politicians and certain media which have convinced much of the voting population that government can solve all their problems, will take care of them from cradle-to-grave, and it is our nation’s fault that our enemies wish to do us harm.

Q. Martin County Sheriff Robert Crowder will be challenging youin a GOP primary in FL-18. Crowder has said that “outsiders shouldn’t be able to move in and get a free ride.” Are you concerned about Crowder’s primary challenge? Will Crowder’s entry into the race force you to make any changes to your campaign strategy or message?

A. Every member of the House of Representatives must stand for reelection every two years. There is no such thing as a “free ride.” It is up to the voters to decide who will best represent them on Capitol Hill. My conservative message is not a campaign strategy, it is my fundamental belief. I always have and will continue to stand for the strong conservative principles on which this nation was founded.

Q. The conventional wisdom among Democrats is that you are “too radical.” Do you resent that label? Do you believe there is any truth to that moniker?

A. What concerns me deeply is that today, the traditional principles upon which this great nation was founded are somehow considered “radical.” Some argue 236 years ago, the idea of forming a nation where power derives from the individual and not from a monarch was “radical.” The fact that patriotism, belief in God and a willingness to fight for our constitutional freedom and liberties is labeled by some as “radical” simply demonstrates to me how misguided liberal Democrats have become.

“This is a battlefield that we must stand upon. And we need to let President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and my dear friend, chairman of the Democrat National Committee, we need to let them know that Florida ain’t on the table,” West said.
The audience was booing by the time West got to Pelosi’s name.

“Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else,” he continued. “You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”
As the audience cheered and many rose to their feet, West added, “Yeah I said ‘hell.'”
“This is not about 1 percent or 99 percent. This is about 100 percent. It’s about 100 percent America. And I will not stand back and watch anyone defame, degrade or destroy that which my father fought for, my older brother, my father-in-law, myself, my nephew and all my friend still in uniform,” he said.

“I will not allow President Obama to take the United States of America and destroy it. If that means I’m the No. 1 target for the Democrat Party, all I got to say is one thing: Bring it on, baby.”

U.S. Rep. Allen West electrified an attentive full house of Republicans at Saturday’s Lincoln Day dinner. Former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain’s surprise endorsement of the night’s keynote speaker Newt Gingrich may have created the biggest buzz, but West’s 10-minute speech offered its own star attraction, bringing the eager crowd to its feet.

Greetings to our constituents, fellow Floridians, and all Americans, let me begin by wishing all of you a very happy Thanksgiving. I pray everyone will travel safely and enjoy a special time with family and friends, enjoy the feast and that your favorite football team wins!

Speaking of winning and losing, I am sad to report that the American people have witnessed a collective group of losers in those elected to the United States House of Representatives. It was incredibly appalling for me to sit there and watch the Balanced Budget Amendment fail to get the two-thirds majority necessary on Friday. Now we are seeing the abject failure of the so-called “Super Committee” which was tasked to develop a plan for deficit reduction. Every day it looks like that is not going to happen.

The liberal mantra for describing the Republican Party was “The Party of No!” I must agree, they said “No” to a $2 trillion healthcare law, a $1 trillion stimulus package, Card Check, and Cap and Trade. However, in my short 11 months on Capitol Hill, I realize the modern-day Democrat Party, primarily controlled by liberal progressives, is “The Party of No Solutions.”

The United States of America just exceeded a record $15 trillion in debt. We now have a debt to GDP ratio of 101%, not that far from Greece (128%) and Italy (120%). Under the failed leadership of President Barack Obama, we have added $4.4 trillion of new debt in less than three years and have seen three straight years of record deficits; $1.42 trillion, $1.29 trillion, and $1.3 trillion. In 2011, we have seen anemic quarterly GDP growth of only 0.4%, 1.0%, and 2.5%. At this time in the third year of the first term of the Reagan Administration we were at 7-8% GDP growth.

This past week, we had a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) from President Obama stating they strongly opposed a Balanced Budget Amendment, even though it was the same Amendment that came within one vote of passing in the United States Senate in 1995. We listened to countless Democrats on Thursday and Friday during debate stating this was not the time and this would not help the fiscal morass in which we find ourselves.

Then I ask what is the solution? More government spending? Because that is all the liberals seem to understand. Their convoluted understanding of simple economic principles is just baffling. It makes one believe the liberal agenda is to have more people wedded to a subsistence or government check, so they will be beholden to government and cast their votes to continue more of the same.

Under the Obama Administration we have seen a 41% increase in food stamp recipients, a 16% increase in Americans on poverty, and 48.5% of Americans on some form of government aid. The liberals want and need victims. They need to have a majority of Americans wedded to government. A Balanced Budget Amendment would have put a serious constraint on the liberal ability to come up with more failed bureaucratic nanny-state schemes. The Balanced Budget Amendment would have destroyed the potential ability of “statists” to expand the size and scope of the federal government. We cannot resolve the job situation in America unless we get the investment capital of America back on Main Street.

When combined with the failure of the “Super Committee,” the harebrained idea of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, we see the inability of the liberals to present any viable solution beyond Tax the Rich!

Paul Krugman stated, “Allow the Super Committee to fail and have sequestration kick-in.” Why? Because the liberal progressive mindset is all about punishing the Department of Defense and gutting it to levels which shall threaten the future security of our nation.

Following the lead of their Campaigner-in-Chief, all the Democrats are seeking to stall and be the ultimate obstructionists so they can blame the House Republicans. President Obama is taking a page from President Harry Truman’s playbook of running against a “do-nothing” Congress… and a complicit mainstream media is his primary enabler.

The truth is obvious; the Democrats are the “do-nothings,” unless destroying the fiscal status of America counts for something. The United States Senate, controlled by Democrat Leader Harry Reid, has failed to produce a budget in over 900 days. The same Senate has 22 job-creating pieces of legislation, passed by the House of Representatives, sitting on its desk, bills that will incentivize and revitalize economic and job growth.

The “Super Committee” will allow President Obama and his liberal acolytes to again say, the Republicans are intransigent. The truth is, as stated by Representative James Clyburn (D-SC) a week ago on Fox News Sunday, the Democrats had no plan. They rejected a plan from Republicans which showed you can stabilize or reduce tax rates combined with eliminating tax loopholes to generate revenues.

President Obama decides to stall on the Keystone XL project, with not a peep from the mainstream media. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called American a “nation of cowards.” The only cowards I see are those in the media who are complicit in not reporting the true story of what is going on in Washington D.C.

I would much rather be a member of a party that says “No” to President Obama’s desire to fundamentally transform our America. I am proud to say “No” to continued deficit spending and growth of our debt.

I am pleased to say to my constituents that I voted YES to a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. However, the South Florida media conglomerate should be asking my Democrat colleagues why they do not believe we should balance our federal budget? State Governments balance their budgets, businesses balance their budgets, families balance their budgets.

We just continue to build “Mount Debtmore” with the faces of President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Reid, House Minority Leader Pelosi, and House Minority Leader Whip Hoyer prominently displayed.

In closing, be not dismayed. We have much to be thankful for, as citizens of this great nation, and we will continue to fight for what is right.